WORLD CUP USA ’94 / THE FIRST ROUND : Goal Is to Gain Foothold Here : Viewpoint: Interest in soccer depends on whether American sports fans can be weaned from their obsession with statistics.

The world’s most popular sport is holding its world championship in one of the world’s most sports-mad nations--which, unfortunately, has not cared much for the sport in the past. By the time the champion is decided, 52 games will have been played, watched by nearly 4 million spectators in nine cities and by billions on television. The final alone will draw a television audience of 2 billion.

None of this guarantees what some fans hope for: that soccer will join the list of national American sports. Whether it does depends on many factors, primarily whether soccer can overcome its defensive orientation and whether American audiences can be brought to like a game not susceptible to statistical analysis.

In baseball, purists claim to relish 1-0 games; for non-purists, they tend to be boring. In soccer, few Americans are purists, yet low-scoring games have multiplied. The massed defenses, the offside rule, the emphasis on avoiding a loss at all costs have made high-scoring games (say, more than three goals a game) increasingly rare, and even three-goal games are infrequent.

In the last World Cup, the Irish team that reached the quarterfinals by scoring only two goals is an extreme example of this style. FIFA’s rules changes--granting an additional point for victories, not permitting the goalkeeper to handle the ball if it is passed back to him by his own side, and ejecting players who trip an opponent breaking clear--have not been in effect long enough to permit a conclusive judgment. They have surely opened up the game; whether they lead to more goals will be tested during the championship which, at least after the group of 16 is reached, will pit quite evenly matched teams against each other.

More scoring certainly will help the American spectator. But the question remains whether he can be weaned from the obsession with statistics. The major American sports involve a series of discrete plays that in turn can be broken into their components and given a statistic. Though the three hours of a typical baseball game rarely have more than 30 minutes of real action, the spectators are kept busy working out batting, fielding and earned-run averages, to name a few. Similarly, in football, which has twice as much action as baseball, spectators can concentrate on pass completions, sacks, tackles and a bewildering variety of different set plays.

Soccer, with its marvelous fluidity and its ever-changing patterns, must be enjoyed for its crescendos, not its segments. We hope the television broadcasts show some of this rather than concentrate only on the man with the ball.

In any event, the American spectator will see a rich smorgasbord of styles and tactical concepts. The European teams whose players are drawn from very competitive national leagues represent the school of hard knocks. They play on the whole a tough defensive game with priority given to thwarting the opponent. The Germans try to overcome the defensive walls by total football, with all players except the goalie going on offense--or on defense if required. With this style, Germany has reached the finals in four of the last five World Cups. It could do so again, though it is getting a bit long in the tooth, lacks effective strikers (it had to call one back from semi-retirement) and, in the games Kissinger saw, looked steady rather than brilliant.

Italy, champion with a marvelous team in 1982 and just as defensive, plays a more intricate game--partly because its players rarely can be induced to undergo the regimen of the Germans. They relate their play to time and try to wreck their opponent’s style. Favoring short passes, they can be beautiful to watch when they are on and maddening when they lose interest. A young team, it could go far or flame out early.

Another traditional powerhouse is the Netherlands, which had been improving from game to game. But it has lost Ruud Gullit, at one time the world’s best footballer, who walked off the team in a dispute with the coach. His absence might well damage the team’s beautiful if somewhat stereotyped passing game and could ruin the chances for the Dutch.

Europe has supplied an unprecedented number of teams that rarely reach the final Cup competition. Norway has not been in a World Cup since 1938. Its mixture of amateurs and professionals has to substitute a tough defense for the skills of the full-time pros. But it has beaten good teams and recently tied England on its home ground, which is not easy. It still would be amazing if it could go beyond the round of 16. Switzerland might not reach even that. Ireland will go as far as its rugged defense will take it, which should not be beyond the quarterfinals. That it is tough was shown by its recent defeat of Germany in Hanover--the first Irish defeat of Germany since 1988.

The Latin American teams emerge from a less-brutal competition in their native leagues. They are therefore more prone to take chances. This makes them more fun to watch but also causes them to be much more vulnerable to counterattacks. Of these, Brazil is always the most fun. Its acrobatic players, its good-natured fans with their samba drums turn games into riotous fiestas. Alas, in all recent World Cups, Brazil was vanquished by sudden thrusts from an outplayed opponent. Nothing would popularize American soccer more than a Brazilian victory in the World Cup.

Argentina has been in the finals of three of the last four World Cups and won twice. Its style is less playful than Brazil’s but more deadly. It prefers the open Latin American style but is capable of playing a ruthless, brutal defense. It was a deadly defense and an otherwise mediocre goalkeeper who was a genius in penalty shootouts that got Argentina to the final last time. But it is to be hoped that we see the Argentina of 1978 and 1986, not the Argentina of 1990.

The sleeper team of South America is Colombia. Kissinger saw it, on television, beat Argentina, 5-0, in the qualification round. The offensive wizardry of the Colombians was astounding. If they can play at this tempo twice a week, they could go at least to the semifinals.

The last South American team is Bolivia. It qualified by dominating its opponents on its home ground of La Paz, which has an altitude of 12,000 feet. Unfortunately for Bolivia, the World Cup will be played at sea level.

Without doubt, the teams that will be most fun to watch together with the Brazilians are the two African teams, Nigeria and Cameroon. In 1990, Cameroon was within a hair of beating England with its free-wheeling style. We were looking forward to Cameroon’s impact on the methodical Germans in the semifinal match. Alas, it lost concentration, was tied near the end and lost in overtime.

We haven’t seen Nigeria, South Korea, Morocco and Saudi Arabia even on TV. We will comment as the Cup progresses.

Now for the United States. In the Cup without having to qualify because it is the host country, the United States has some strong players and an experienced though enigmatic coach in Bora Milutinovic. But it does not have any players of the very first rank and it lacks, fatally, we are afraid, the underpinnings of a professional soccer league.

Nevertheless the United States looked steady when it beat Mexico, 1-0, in its last tuneup before the Cup. Its nicely set up goal was a thing of beauty.

Nearly all of the 91,123 spectators in the Rose Bowl were passionate fans of Mexico. Their dejection was palpable.

No host nation of the World Cup has failed to make it into the second round. It will be an achievement to be proud of if the United States does.